Gemma Vart1, Rita Banzi, Silvia Minozzi. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, UK. g.vart@ucl.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Biennial screening with faecal occult blood tests (FOBts) has been found to reduce colorectal cancer mortality. Faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are superior to guaiac faecal occult blood tests (G-FOBts) due to their improved sensitivity and specificity. However the effectiveness of a screening programme depends highly on participation rates. The aim of this study was to review studies comparing guaiac faecal occult blood tests and faecal immunochemical tests, in terms of participation rates. METHODS: We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Library (2000-September 2011) to identify randomised control trials comparing guaiac faecal occult blood test with faecal immunochemical test participation rates. One author screened the titles and abstracts, and performed data extraction which was then checked by the other authors. Risk of bias in the included studies was also assessed. RESULTS: Seven studies met the eligibility criteria and were entered into a meta-analysis. Participation rates were significantly higher for individuals offered faecal immunochemical tests compared to those offered a guaiac faecal occult blood test (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.09-1.33). Potential factors that could have influenced participation were discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal cancer screening programmes currently using guaiac faecal occult blood tests could improve participation rates by converting to faecal immunochemical tests. More research examining the acceptability of faecal immunochemical tests, from a patient perspective, is warranted.
BACKGROUND: Biennial screening with faecal occult blood tests (FOBts) has been found to reduce colorectal cancer mortality. Faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are superior to guaiac faecal occult blood tests (G-FOBts) due to their improved sensitivity and specificity. However the effectiveness of a screening programme depends highly on participation rates. The aim of this study was to review studies comparing guaiac faecal occult blood tests and faecal immunochemical tests, in terms of participation rates. METHODS: We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Library (2000-September 2011) to identify randomised control trials comparing guaiac faecal occult blood test with faecal immunochemical test participation rates. One author screened the titles and abstracts, and performed data extraction which was then checked by the other authors. Risk of bias in the included studies was also assessed. RESULTS: Seven studies met the eligibility criteria and were entered into a meta-analysis. Participation rates were significantly higher for individuals offered faecal immunochemical tests compared to those offered a guaiac faecal occult blood test (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.09-1.33). Potential factors that could have influenced participation were discussed. CONCLUSIONS:Colorectal cancer screening programmes currently using guaiac faecal occult blood tests could improve participation rates by converting to faecal immunochemical tests. More research examining the acceptability of faecal immunochemical tests, from a patient perspective, is warranted.
Authors: Brian D Nicholson; Matthew Thompson; Christopher P Price; Carl Heneghan; Annette Plüddemann Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Caitlin C Murphy; Ahana Sen; Bianca Watson; Samir Gupta; Helen Mayo; Amit G Singal Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-11-18 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Douglas J Robertson; Jeffrey K Lee; C Richard Boland; Jason A Dominitz; Francis M Giardiello; David A Johnson; Tonya Kaltenbach; David Lieberman; Theodore R Levin; Douglas K Rex Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-10-18 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Gloria D Coronado; Sally Retecki; Jennifer Schneider; Stephen H Taplin; Tim Burdick; Beverly B Green Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2015-09-29 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Beverly B Green; Ching-Yun Wang; Melissa L Anderson; Jessica Chubak; Richard T Meenan; Sally W Vernon; Sharon Fuller Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-03-05 Impact factor: 25.391